The motorways of the world are becoming increasingly dangerous with the added increase of automobiles per household. Added to the increase in motor vehicle traffic is the increase in speed of each vehicle on the motorway. Many municipal transportation authorities recommend a distance between vehicles in motion of one second per 10 miles an hour of time elapse between the leading vehicle and trailing vehicle. Therefore, at a speed of 60 miles per hour motorists should allow at least 6 seconds in between each vehicle. Statistics show that over 12 million auto accidents happen annually with over half of those accidents being a rear end type of collision. Forty thousand deaths occur every year from these accidents and over 2 million injuries occur. All of these statistics indicate that the recommended distance between moving vehicles is not being adhered to. The ability to change driver's skill is difficult, therefore a device is necessary to help reduce rear end collisions at motorway speeds.
Devices exist that heighten other driver's awareness of a vehicle that is slowing down rapidly. These devices have utilized the center high mounted stop lamp of the vehicle and make the center high mounted stop lamp flash when the brake pedal is depressed. Awareness is increased at first, but with time drivers become desensitized or even annoyed at the flashing center high mounted brake light. In time, this desensitization undermines the effectiveness of the brake light in preventing and reducing rear end collisions.
Other devices cease flashing the center high mounted brake lamp after a prescribed amount of time. These devices tamper with the vehicles factory wiring system, which, unknown to many vehicle owners, can void any warranty from the manufacturer of the vehicle. To date, the above-described devices are operable to modulate the stop lamp or separate light principally when the driver of the vehicle is depressing a brake pedal or otherwise actuating the brake system of the vehicle. Accordingly, the proposed devices are not continuously operable, since they are only energized when power to the brake lights is also applied. In an instance where a driver of a vehicle may not be aware of a braking situation and therefore no depression of the brake pedal occurs, these devices are rendered useless.
Other devices have been developed to utilize a solid-state system composed of an accelerometer to measure the deceleration force of a vehicle and a microprocessor to energize the brake light or other illumination device on a vehicle. While these devices are closer to creating a successful design to reduce the likeliness of a rear end collision, most of these proposed devices are too complicated to retrofit into an existing vehicle. These devices also must utilize the vehicle's 12-volt system, which requires someone to tamper with the very complicated wiring harness of the vehicle. Vehicles generally built after 1990 have an On Board Diagnostic System Series II (OBDS II). OBDS II has more computing power than the Apollo spaceships designed by NASA. A wiring harness meltdown due to a simple short developed from one of the proposed devices which utilizes the vehicle wiring system could result in a system failure of the OBDS II, which controls such life saving vehicle devices as the Antilock braking system, Airbag Deployment System, and all warning illumination systems. Therefore, the devices discussed above should not be utilized due to these serious safety concerns.
In addition, many devices utilize potential success of the solid-state accelerometer and microprocessor combination to create a useful embodiment, but they propose to utilize the vehicle brake lamp configuration and not the hazard illumination lights of the vehicle. Many vehicles have amber hazard light combinations rather than red, thereby drawing more immediate attention to the vehicle in hazardous conditions such as breakdowns, fog or low light conditions, or post accident conditions. Any vehicle equipped with an amber hazard illumination system has already passed strict department of transportation rules to allow for a flashing amber hazard light in that country. In contrast, some municipalities do not allow for a flashing brake lamp. Thus, many of the devices that utilize the original manufacturer's equipment brake light system of a vehicle as a warning system may not be legal on many roadways. Finally, devices that utilize the primary brake light of a vehicle potentially expose that vehicle to a complete loss of any brake light indication if there is a system failure. Systems that utilize the amber warning lights of a vehicle are not utilizing the primary means of warning other drivers as to the braking of a vehicle and are much safer in a real world scenario.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,204 to Bloomfield et al. describes an anti-collision safety light for a vehicle that utilizes a solid state accelerometer and a microprocessor, but this device utilizes the vehicle's power system exposing the vehicle to a complete wiring meltdown resulting in severe safety limitations and expensive electrical diagnosis and repair.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,249,219 to Perez et al. describes an anti-collision safety light for a vehicle that utilizes a solid-state accelerometer and a microprocessor that draws from the vehicle's power system and thus presents the same drawbacks as the Bloomfield device. Moreover, this device also utilizes the red brake light of the vehicle which does not command as much attention as an amber hazard lamp, and furthermore some government municipalities do not allow for a brake lamp to flash, thereby potentially making a vehicle with this device illegal on some road ways.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,023,221 to Michelotti describes an anti-collision safety light for a vehicle that utilizes a solid state accelerometer and a microprocessor which will energize the hazard warning light system of a vehicle, but this device also utilizes the vehicles power system and thus presents drawbacks similar to the above-mentioned devices of prior art references. This device also must be manually reset by the vehicle operator, or will reset after the microprocessor detects a series of positive acceleration values consistent to normal vehicle operations. Increased calculations by a micro processing unit increase the costs of development and manufacturing and introduce more opportunity for error in the unit than a system that will simply cease to activate after a set amount of time.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,786,753 to Craig et al. describes an anti-collision safety light for a vehicle that utilizes a solid state accelerometer and a microprocessor that energizes the hazard warning light system of a vehicle, but again this device draws from the vehicle's power system and thus presents the associated drawbacks discussed above. Moreover, there are many complicated devices involved in this device such as a signal generator including a number of inertial switches, an oscillator, and four Schmitt triggers all of which expose this device to many points of failure and may be difficult to retro fit on a vehicle. This device is also dependant upon the depressing of the vehicle's brake pedal and is not effective if a vehicle operator does not have a chance to depress the brake pedal.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,751,493 to Miller is a proposed device that can be retrofit to an existing vehicle, but activation of the warning system is dependant upon the driver of the vehicle removing his foot from the vehicle's accelerator pedal. This device also utilizes an amber light unit not factory installed on the vehicle and therefore may not be permitted by many road authorities.
Thus, a need exists for a vehicle deceleration warning system that does not draw from the vehicle's power supply and for a system that unambiguously relates to neighboring drivers that a vehicle is rapidly decelerating.